ILNews

COA rules on estate representative's banking activity

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has overturned a Lake County judge in an estate case involving a personal representative who conducted banking transactions for an elderly man before his death.

In American Savings, FSB v. Steve H. Tokarski, Successor Personal Rep. of the Estate of John Wroblewski, on Behalf of the Estate, No. 45A04-1105-CC-237, the appellate court reversed and remanded a decision by Lake Superior Judge Gerarld Svetanoff regarding the estate of John Wroblewski that dates back to 2003.

While in his late 80s, Wroblewski named Zorica Milovanovic as his power of attorney and gave her the authority to do tasks such as personal banking transactions. He executed a will naming her the personal representative of his estate, and in June 2003 she used that power of attorney to purchase cashier’s checks which she deposited into a new savings account at American Savings Bank in her name only. After Wroblewski died in 2004, his heirs contested the will and Milovanovic serving as personal representative.

Fifth Third Bank eventually became the successor personal representative, and in 2005 the Lake Superior Court declared Wroblewski’s will invalid because of Milovanovic’s undue influence. Fifth Third requested the savings account records from American Savings Bank, When Steve Tokarski became personal representative in 2007, he filed the lawsuit against American Savings Bank on grounds that the financial institution knew the money was, in fact, for John Wroblewski but allowed Milovanovic to deposit it. That was a breach of contract, the representative claimed.

The trial court found in favor of Tokarski on two counts and for American Savings Bank on a third, relying on a 2010 appellate case known as In re Estate of Rickert to determine American Savings Bank was liable. But the Court of Appeals concluded Rickert is inapplicable to this case because a contract did not arise between American Savings and Wroblewski when Milovanovic opened her savings account. Tokarski provided the trial court with no other basis for a contract between American Savings and Wroblewski and pointed to no designated evidence showing the existence of such a contract, the court found.

As a result, the appellate judges found the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for Tokarski and denying summary judgment for American Savings on the count involving the receipt of cashier’s checks to Milovanovic’s savings account.

The appellate court also found in favor of Tokarski on the issue of the bank’s applying a certificate of deposit to pay off Milovanovic’s mortgage. By deciding the trial court had erred on the first two counts, the appellate judges decided they didn’t need to address the issue of damages and set-off.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT